WotC Jeremy Crawford Interview: Playtests from experimental to focused. By Christian Hoffer at GenCon.

[mamba]

That's a claim, not evidence. Evidence would be something that demonstrates 1. that their process includes "70% satisfaction means we go forward every time" and 2. that they threw out (whatever mechanical thing) despite it achieving a satisfactory mark. I don't think you have established 1, so 2 doesn't matter.

not really, that would show that they made one exception just for this. But reaching 70% already shows a majority all by itself, which is what I was talking about

 

[MockingBird]

Yeah the poster you're responding to is acting like he's literally never been on the internet before - obviously different people have different opinions, so acting like they're contradictory is merely evidence of the poster's own inability to comprehend the internet and collate information and absolutely nothing else. It's sad that people are still coming out with this total and utter canard in 2023. It was sad in 1993. At this point it's inexplicable.

You can call me out if you like. I was merely making an observation. I'll try to internet better in future post.

 

[darjr]

Yay! Another thread that devolves into the OneD&D Playtest has bad methodology and is kicking puppies. Can we get a few more like this?

I’d think people talking about it is generally a good thing.

And they do seem to be listening. And seeing people on the far end of “must be all new” and “don’t change a thing” up in arms may be a general good sign for a decent middle road.

 

[mamba]

I don't think you actually understand their process. You want them to use your version of their process, but they aren't.

I can understand their process and still think it is wrong too you know…

 

[mamba]

The problem here is "damned if we do and damned if we don't." If they stated they completely ignored any negative feedback from social media, they would have been eaten alive by social media for doing so.

they could simply say nothing about that too…

 

[mamba]

And they do seem to be listening. And seeing people on the far end of “must be all new” and “don’t change a thing” up in arms may be a general good sign for a decent middle road.

the ‘don’t change a thing’ crowd is awfully quiet for this these days, guess they got their wish

 

[darjr]

the ‘don’t change a thing’ crowd is awfully quiet for this these days, guess they got their wish

There are things in the older UAs that are probably going to be brought forward that folks didn’t like. It’s just not the focus now.

 

[mamba]

There are things in the older UAs that are probably going to be brought forward that folks didn’t like. It’s just not the focus now.

way to go, bring forward things we do not like, throw out things we do.

At this point I am mostly curious about the spell part, the rest of the PHB is a lost cause. Anything that could have turned this into a solid evergreen edition was shot down.

 

[mamba]

Yeah I was thinking about getting that. I got a bit turned off on MCDM by the horrible decisions he seems to be making with his new RPG but his 5E stuff sounds excellent.

haven’t heard anything in a while. I did not like the initial weird dice direction, but they recovered from that. Is there something new?

I am ok with them experimenting all over the place, as long as you know what you are looking for and are ok with throwing things out again, that should get you where you want to be (even if it is not where I would want to be).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

“Interestingly, many of the bigger changes reached the threshold that Wizards considers to be a success – a 70% success rate. "The thing is, the scores are not the full story," Crawford said. "We also look at what are people saying in the written feedback and what they are saying in online discussion forums. And while people were often excited by a number of these experiments, there was also a lot of concern about what would this do to the existing game."”

so they should have iterated, and instead threw them out because there were some loud naysayers, great. I positively hate this process.

Feel free to join the club. Setting an arbitrary "almost everyone must like this before we even consider iterating on it" standard is the stupidest design choice they ever went with. And that's got stiff competition from the Champion subclass.